Then why should we lose our minds over section 1?

You negotiate immediate penalties for non compliance.

Management paper bids the air line as if the required positions existed and pay the harmed pilots each and every month until they are in compliance.

We brought them into compliance, the least they can do is not get out of compliance again.

This language is worthless.

So cute when the DPA illustrates that it does not understand the RLA or how to enforce a contract. Kinda like a puppy that gets excited and pees on the floor.

But, it does get old after a while.

I'm still a yes vote after reading this and this is why, we have 68 wide bodies on order - a good portion of those are not replacements (some of them are).
Those airplanes are going to have to fly somwhere. For those that say those orders can be cancelled, yes they can but they can be cancelled for a multitude of other uncontrollable reasons as well. Some or all of these joint ventures keep our domestic planes full and growing as well: Had profit sharing been changed I would not feel like I do now but it's still a yes for me

Tell us what will happen after management is out of compliance after 2 years based on the new far lower minimums.

Tell us what will happen if we turn this down and they go out of compliance and move more flying to WestPac?

Tell me your experience settling grievances.

I spent countless hours working on grievances with Ken Watts in the ALPA office in Minneapolis. All on my own time with no flight pay loss. Settlements involving hundreds of pilots and millions of dollars. Captain Watts is far more intelligent and experienced than I am. That being said, I have forgotten more about enforcing the contract and selling grievances than you will ever know.

Did you have to handle that one grievance once? I imagine you have little to no experience.

I don't like the reduction in the AF ESK percentage, but I do like the shortening of the window. The previous 3 years of bottomless potential abuse by the company, followed by another year to "cure" was excessive. The percentage under the TA will be worse, but the compliance aspect will be way better. Is that a fair trade off? I don't know, I'll have to talk to a lot more people and see what they say at road shows.

The 650,000 block hour floor for global balancing, which is only triggered when they are below 48.5%, seems like a nice backstop, but what will the exact effect be when and if its triggered compared to today?

Is SEA a hub WRT the Alaska situation or is it not a hub for the purposes of our section 1? Because that is the only definition that matters.

I have another 20 years and scope matters to me. That said, a bad precedent was set when we settled for $30M for the previous JV grievance. Whatever the amount that DAL cheated, we have now set a precedent that said amount of JV flying is now worth $30M. This change to the JV % sucks, but again, using the precedent set last year what is the dollar value on this give? Is it worth $30M? Is it worthless as you say since it's unenforceable? If it is unenforceable anyway, then is it really a give? Playing devil's advocate, if this is really unenforceable then doesn't it makes sense for us to trade it for something of value since in reality the company can just take it with nothing in return?

Then Ken Watts could help you to understand that if the company violates our scope, under this TA, or under C2012, (or under the student counsel the DPA would set up to represent us) our bargaining agent would file a grievance which, as a minor dispute, would receive expedited handling while both sides are required to operate under the status quo. The bargaining agent could seek a variety of remedies from injunctive relief to compensatory and punitive damages.

Thank you for serving your pilots for free. I can only imagine the difficulty of sitting across the table from NWA management, regardless of the forum.